No one here would have the job they do. It'd be just another dirt pit like Vietnam.

Have you actually been to Vietnam lately? Despite the horrors inflicted on it in the 60s and 70s, it has rebounded and surpassed many countries on the US's "friendly" list.

And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of ESL teachers in Vietnam.

I think that the point he was making, Mr Lemon, was that an ESL job in Korea (assuming things work out right) is much more lucrative then a similar job in Vietnam. If we went to Vietnam we would all have a much lower standard of living, and far less income.

tobacco fiend: you're a real winner pal! I pitty you. Just because you are not MAN enough to stand up for what is right does not make U.S. soldiers killers. No one likes war. But it's a fact of life and innocent people die. This has gone on for thousands of years. And will go on until the end of the world.
"Thank you, American Soldier! You maim, you kill, you slaughter. You offer many sacrifices to Moloch--er, JESUS--my God. You love your country enough to rip off the arms, legs, and HEAD of anyone who stands in America's great way. THANK YOU, American Soldier!"
What? No other country kills.

Listen, "hellofaniceguy,"

I served in the US Armed Forces as an enlisted soldier and left with an honorable discharge.

That was almost twenty years ago, my friend.

DO NOT TELL ME THAT I AM NOT "MAN ENOUGH" TO STAND AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!

Did you get that, friend?

I will fight and DIE for what is right any day of the year.

I will NOT fight for what is wrong.

I will NOT fight to expand and enrich the coffers of this criminal, unelected, warmongering Bush Cabal which is ANTI-PATRIOTIC to the
CORE!

Tobacco Fiend is a proud veteran of the United States armed forces who WILL fight and die for what is right--not for what is wrong!--and that is NO joke!

Wow, is there some anger going on there, Sheesh. Relax, count to ten and Chill
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with the premise of the article in theory, that the men and women of the US armed forces in general should not be put down for what they do. It is their job by all means. I was however surprised that the author ( a Canadian) took such a one sided view of the whole issue (it is like he feels that the only army that fought in those wars were the belated Americans.)

Quote:

All around the world American servicemen and women have defended the nations of their allies and put their lives on the line, yet those who have most benefited from the American presence have chosen to turn their backs on their protectors.

They have forgotten who stood by them during the worst of times and provided the stability for their countries to flourish. Take the case of France. When Germany threatened France in World War I, American doughboys came to the rescue. When France was overrun by the Nazi menace some three decades later, thousands of American soldiers gave their lives for France's freedom.

Yes, the nations of these countries should be thankful for what those soldiers did in those wars, but what does that have to do in the context of the present times? Absolutely nothing.

This is like saying that just because you helped me in a fight before, I should put on the blinders and fight with you in any war that comes along. I do not see the connection between coming to the aid of an ally, embroiled in a war of aggression, and not supporting an ally who is perpetrating their own war of aggression.

I know that France had interests in Iraq and their decision not to support the US hinged on that, but come on saying "Since I fought on your side in WWI and WWII, you should back me up on this one." That is taking the argument way out of context. They have not forgotten who helped them, they just do not support them in aggressive wars (and yes it was a war against their interests for sure).

As for South Korea:

Quote:

On the streets and in private homes and offices, many South Koreans still view U.S. servicemen and women with suspicion if not outright hostility.

Yes, some still remember or have heard stories of the brutality in which US servicemen treated South Korean refugees during the war, leading to some suspicion and hostility. Some of these same people, and their younger relations, also tend to (erroneously) equate US foriegn policy with soldiers. However, the author's use of sarcasm to address these feelings does nothing to change or lighten them, just attacks them with rhetoric and innuendo.

So in closing, I agree, that the military of any country deserves not to be put down and deserves the respect of those they protect. But the way the author of the article lumps opposition to American foriegn policy as a negative outlook of American service men and women is not productive or reasonable.

I thoroughly support the American soldier who goes to fight as a duty, but I do not support present American foreign policy - they are two different things. People who do not distinguish between these two differences (like the author) are the cause of most of the hostility over this issue

This is always a hot topic. I was called an overtly patriotic yankee by a friend from South Africa because I simply asked her to give me a good reason why she didn't like Bush and American politics. I can think of a few reasons but I was curious about her reasons. She could only come up with grade school reasons; he sounds stupid, he seems arrogant, he is "too southern". I get this a lot. I got it more last year when I started asking that simple question, "why?". I don't mind people raising their voice in opposition. Hell I may even learn something along the way. I learn a lot about the world from protest and governmental decention. My parents were Black Panthers for goodness sake. I love it. What I can't stand, however, is when people make statements as some spoon fed mantra. Be fair or at least say I don't know about it. It is funny that now Liberians are sounding like Austrians and Germans before the US entered the war. "Why are the Americans not doing anything?" (That is a direct quote from a CNN interview). Will America be criticized in 50 years if they go into Liberia fighting. Will Liberia in 50 years have a strong economy and begin to make songs called f@#* USA? At the end of the day the US is not perfect. Never claimed to be. American soldiers do know, however, that when the call comes in they must and will go thankless or not. I'm an overtly patriotic yankee. I just want people to think and say something to me not just run their mouth with empry words.

What war is right? What fight is right? How have we expanded our "empire" through war? Also how can helping a US economy in this age hinder the global economy. When the US economy goes south believe me that the global economy suffers with it. Do you think that other global powers have never gotten fat from US ventures over seas? Educate me please. I'm confused. This is not only to you Tobacco. I want anyone to fill me in on this. I know that I seem sarcastic but I really want to know! How does Japan or Europe or even Canada get a skate in the international blame game? If US soldiers' hands are bloody then the worlds hands are too. I can start you off if you get stuck.. We can begin with Africa. The us has been to African countries before to "assist" and yet this is the most exploited continent in the world. Is the US getting all of the diamonds, rubber, lumber..? Help me understand the thinking .

I'm not Tobacco, but I'd say the war against Hitler's Nazis was pretty right. I'd say fighting against a country that invades yours is right. I'd even say that throwing out (or killing)a despot who puts children in prison for not joining his youth group, or who ethnically cleanses a group of people with poison gas is to be desired.

People who join the armed forces do so out of choice, it's a career decision just like esl. I don't expect to be thanked for my job, if I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't do it. An individual soldier's motivation is not neccessarily altruistic, I'm guessing usually they do it for money, or because their parents did it. In many cases they don't have as broad a range of career options as many others, and the military offers a reasonable career. I have found the rank and file service men I've encountered to be profoundly uninformed on the political ramifications of thier job, and content with the simple fact that they are American, and they are right. So, on an individual level they are not particularly altruistic ( helping others for the sake of it, not for gain )

As for the government who leads these noble pilgrims, well, they're not altruistic either. I don't understand these phases like " ... we helped you " ... don't kid yourself kiddies, the US government ( and any government for that matter ) does not do ANYTHING unless it gives the US some kind of advantage, be that stability in an area leading to more profitable trade, a strategic place to locate a strong-hold in an unfriendly area, or ensuring that a friendly government wins or retains power. It all comes back to power and economics, which are in the end, two facets of the same thing.

Thank a soldier, no thanks. And on a personal level, I've found them to be the most obnoxious, ignorant, and violent people I've ever met. When Geko's gets full of them and the booze flows, bet your money on a fight. Gee, thanks guys ...